Same here. Other than the fact that Newt is more interesting in the debates, I can't see a single issue that's a negative on Romney that isn't just as bad or worse on Newt. Plus, we know Romney can lead, and Newt has failed that test.

To me, it means that we only see one depth of his thinking process. Or shallow presentations of his ideas

When asked a question you can tell that he is very VERY carefully parsing his answer to suit the situation and revealing only what he thinks is going to be an appeasing or appealing answer. Sound bites and canned responses.

Cardboard man. You only see one side and it is the one that he presents.....today. No depth.

I know....that is probably the definition of a professional politician.

However, it is the professional career politicians who have brought us to this brink of disaster and who refuse to put their own precious jobs in any jeopardy.

Cardboard? Fake? Flip flopper? I have my theory about these labels, as applied to Romney--which I won't reveal here--but they are off the mark in my estimation.

Flip flopper? Who hasn't changed their mind? I noticed that on Meet the Press former Congressman Ford said he (Ford) had changed his mind on same-sex marriage and on abortion. Why can't Romney? Because his changes are perceived as political? By whom? And why? By the way, Romney's change on abortion exactly follows the arc of my change of position on the same issue.

Cardboard? Fake? Talk to the people who really know him or have interacted with him. I have. Not much, but I have interviewed him, and he was very genuine. In that interview he demonstrated that he was a good friend--he effusively praised a friend/co-worker in response to one of my questions--and that he had a sense of humor--I caught him entirely off guard with a quip about snow, cocaine, and clueless Los Angelenos coming to the SLC Olympics.

Romney has no ego. He's willing to give credit where it's due. Gingrich? Not so much.

Romney has his faults. Don't we all? And he has a few positions that I don't subscribe to. But he's a good man. He's competent beyond competent in the areas we need competence. And he knows how to lead.

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

Wake me when we have a "conversation" with someone who knows a lot about Little Black Jesus, garbage. As was pointed out elsewhere, why is it that we know the name of every woman in Herman Cain's life, but not one of the SCOAMF's "girlfriends" (except, perhaps, Kal Penn) has ever come to light?

Freeman and Lyssa, Gingrich is more conservative than Romney. He had a 90% rating with the American Conservative Union in his days in the House.

You're going to have to cite some specific policy that puts him in the same boat with the creator of Romneycare, the basis for Obamacare. That alone should disqualify Romney: It takes from us one of the most powerful issues that we have to unseat Obama.

I've heard a lot of general grumbling about how liberal Gingrich is. Other than a photo-op on a couch with Pelosi, along with some ill-informed (and since recanted) pro-AGW nonsense; and his hesitation to endorse the fairy-tale of rounding up every Mexican in America and physically deport them; I've yet to see a concrete example of this liberalism.

And the ethics bullshit is all just that, bullshit. He was sanctioned for 2 out of hundreds of accusations, and years later they admitted that those two accusations were bullshit too.

Gingrich is the only guy left with the motivation, balls, and political know-how to get the out-of-control spending train back in line.

You're going to have to cite some specific policy that puts him in the same boat with the creator of Romneycare, the basis for Obamacare. That alone should disqualify Romney: It takes from us one of the most powerful issues that we have to unseat Obama.

Gingrich supported an individual mandate. He's no different than Romney on that.

He also undercut Paul Ryan this year. Paul Ryan, one of the only politicians who might make a real difference in beating back government encroachment.

Also, Gingrich's personal life is a disaster, so the press will kill him.

Other than a photo-op on a couch with Pelosi, along with some ill-informed (and since recanted) pro-AGW nonsense; and his hesitation to endorse the fairy-tale of rounding up every Mexican in America and physically deport them; I've yet to see a concrete example of this liberalism.

I'll have to double check the year, but wasn't he all for an individual mandate for health insurance up until around 2005?

Gingrich and Romney are basically identical on positions and reliability. It's a tough choice, except as Freeman says, Romney is more electable to moderates. All he has to do is attract enough of the base to get them to the polls. As part of the base myself, I'll say it's a bad taste, but we'll force it down.

The press will go nuts on Gingrich, and I have no faith in the electorate filtering that effectively. Moderates are easy to sway, and one bad story, even uncorroborated, is enough to swing it, unfortunately.

Yes, Freeman, as a response to Hillary Care, Gingrich did endorse that bone-headed idea, and he's gone back and forth on this since. There's one point I'll concede.

However: Ryan proposed replacing Medicare with a voucher system, which would collapse unless everyone had to use those vouchers to purchase...you guessed it...insurance, meaning that in order for Ryan's plan to work, you'd need an individual mandate.

So I guess Newt's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, huh?

So I'll not concede your second point. Newt is closer to Ryan, in terms of fiscal responsibility, than anyone else in the field whose name doesn't rhyme with Don Ball.

Re his personal foibles: I couldn't care less, and much of it has been manufactured. And regarding the press and their tendency to smear the candidate with the R after their name: I wonder how many funny underwear and polygamy references we'll see between now and Nov 2012, if Romney is the nominee.

And with U6 unemployment at 16%, I'm pretty sure Carol Herman could beat Obama. We tried settling on a RINO last time, that didn't work.

garage said: "I think having girlfriends while being married is the sticking point here."

No, garage, I believe that Christopher was referring to rumors about Obama's sexual preferences, given the fact that no former girl friends, pre-Michelle, have come out of the woodwork to give interviews and cash in.

And you apparently agree with the conspiracy-theorists, that Obama has never had any girlfriends, and that Michelle is a beard (albeit a rather elaborate one, given the fact that they have children.)

Personally, I don't give any credence to these rumors, they're silly; and I don't know why it would matter. But I guess you're entitled to your whacky opinions, garage. If you want to call President Obama a closet homosexual, that's your right.

If by "interesting," you mean "interesting as in watching a ten-car pileup on the Tobin Bridge," ndspinelli, then I'd grant you Allie. I happen to find her silly, whiny and as pleasant as poison ivy, but YMMV.

I do admit to missing Trooper and Fred, though. I also miss Victoria (not, I may add, to be confused with Vicki).

And Pastafarian was on the money with my comment about The One's lack of known girlfriends. Not that I gave a damn whether his children were the result of coitus with Michelle, adopted, the fruit of a job Americans can't be bothered to do or the product of parthenogenesis. It is, however, fascinating that the same enemedia that spared no expense to find out just where Dubya was during his TANG service and made it a vital duty to the Republic to tell us Perry once hunted at a place named "Niggerhead" somehow cannot, even after all this time, be rounded from their stupor to produce Hussein's college transcripts or investigate his connection with pedophile Frank Marshall Davis - well, for all the leftist bleating about "Faux News," it does seem that they are at least occasionally interested in news, rather than in keeping all information about the SCOAMF's past in a lockbox.

I think Romney and Perry are pretty disciplined. Perry doesn't do well in debates, which has hurt him badly, but his campaign is disciplined.

I think Daniels and Jeb Bush would make good presidents and have said why they would. You are a fangirl of Palin and try and dance around the fact that she tremendously increased spending during her 2.5 years as governor before she quit to write 2 books about herself, like Obama did.

You should educate yourself about Newt Gingrich and his record, but given your cognitive dissonance on Palin's actual record, your ideology won't allow it.

Face it, just because you hate Obama, doesn't mean he won't be re-elected. And conservatives don't do themselves any favors by putting forth fools as their nominees.

The only Republican candidates who might be good Presidents are Romney and Huntsman. They're probably the only ones who could beat Obama in a general election. The only conservative candidate running is Ron Paul. So if you want to go down in flames, as it appears you do, vote for him.

American politics and culture may be full of second acts, but this ain't gonna be one of 'em. At some point, repubs and primary voters will begin to recall the hazy memory that Gingrich was an awful Speaker, even given his initial successes. The fact that he could not consolidate his legislative and electoral gains and build on them is predictive of the kind of executive he would be. Does anyone seriously believe Gingrich has the skill or temperament to rally Congress or the public around any of his "great and noble" causes? Maybe Romney could find a place for Gingrich in his administration, but it sure as hell wouldn't be as the head of anything.

If you're a small gov't conservative, well, there's nothing small gov't there.

There is if one is at a federal level and one is at a state level. I can move to another state, but it's much more difficult to move to another country...unless you include those burgeoning capitalist pigdog Canadians.

"Perry doesn't do well in debates, which has hurt him badly, but his campaign is disciplined."

…and his TV ads in Iowa are terrific! Sincere, folksy, slightly humorous without being flippant. Exactly the kind of ads Romney should be running, but isn't. It's just Perry standing there offering his opinion. My favorite has him commenting on Obama's seemingly innocent observation from a few weeks ago that Americans were getting a little lazy. Here's Perry with his Texas drawl and just a slight hint of indignation: "Lazy?! Are you kiddin' me? That's just pathetic."

There is if one is at a federal level and one is at a state level. I can move to another state, but it's much more difficult to move to another country...unless you include those burgeoning capitalist pigdog Canadians.

You miss my point, or perhaps I did not make it well. A small gov't conservative does not think that any gov't [state, federal or otherwise] should be regulating health care to this extent, and certainly not forcing people to buy insurance. Newt and Romney proposing these at any level reveals something about how they think. Their principals. And what it reveals is that they believe in big gov't [and states are big gov'ts too] solutions.

I don't. And that is not the Repub meme, although it is their practice and history.

Romney is cautiously [too cautious IMO] trying to be the moderate so he can win independents in the general election. But that strategy may cost him the nomination so he may never get to the general election! If that happens, will he go Doh!

I fully understand the benevolent despot, criteria. So do your students.

Benevolent dictators are the way to go. The main sticking point being guaranteeing that subsequent heirs don't end up rotten to core from being raised to royalty, power, and wealth. I figured out a way to do it, but itz not pleazant.

Join the Althouse comments community. Add value. There are lots of ways to add value, and I don't discriminate based on viewpoint, but I will delete spam, including things that I think clutter the thread to the detriment of most readers, especially back-and-forth attacks among a small group of commenters. There's a spam filter too, though, so if you don't see your comment, you might be caught in that. Email me if you have a problem with deleted/filtered comments of yours.

Please don't respond to the kind of thing I will now be deleting. I'll have to delete you too.

"Everyone here seems to be selling pretty short on Romney. I suspect you will be changing your tunes when he's the next president."

If the first action after concluding his inaugural address is to issue an executive order repealing Obamacare root and branch, yes, I will change my tune. If he then goes after TSA, ATF and DEA and wipes them out of existence, I'll shout from the rooftops I was wrong about him.

But I suspect you'll be changing your tune when, as soon as the NYT makes a frowny face at "divisive" Mittens, he reaches out to his "good friends" on the left in order to "heal the partisan anger that has stalled our progress for so long."

If the first action after concluding his inaugural address is to issue an executive order repealing Obamacare root and branch, yes, I will change my tune. If he then goes after TSA, ATF and DEA and wipes them out of existence, I'll shout from the rooftops I was wrong about him.

Regardless of who the A.B.O. candidate is, their immediate post-inaugural actions will depend heavily on how the House and Senate shake out. If, for instance, the GOP take all of the brass rings they are hoping for and don't have a plan of action between the White House and Congress ready to go the first day the legislative branch is back in session, I will assume the entire system well and truly broken.

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

Sounds interesting

From Newt:

I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift. If she’s suggesting she’s gonna use material she developed while she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.

Why do those Republicans who favor Gingrich over Romney as the more palatable conservative ignore the effect of Gingrich's nomination on energizing the left? It's well and good to fire up the base, but a key strategy for Republicans in 2012 is to discourage Democratic voter turnout. Voters will stand in the cold for an hour to vote against a candidate as often as for their own. I'd drive to the polls to vote against Gingrich; I'd vote against him two or three times. As a registered Democrat, that's my prerogative.

Sorepaw: I remain convinced that Team Obama has anti-Romney strategy ready to go, and merely wants everyone else to think that they're afraid of Romney.

I expect that the Obama campaign will lean heavily on Teddy Kennedy's playbook. You'll see lots of video of 50 year old people who got laid off when Romney's firm bought out their company and restructured it.

Nope, not willing to take that bet. My point was that given all the problems the GOP has with POTUS, they better step up day one. Anything less than urgency on the part of those in control of two of our branches of government will simply portend epicfail. The Democrats, given the wonderful way in which they rammed through Obamacare, can scarcely object to swift action, though you can bet your sweet bippy they will do so anyway, Pelosi at the forefront.

Nathan said...Why do those Republicans who favor Gingrich over Romney as the more palatable conservative ignore the effect of Gingrich's nomination on energizing the left? It's well and good to fire up the base, but a key strategy for Republicans in 2012 is to discourage Democratic voter turnout. Voters will stand in the cold for an hour to vote against a candidate as often as for their own. I'd drive to the polls to vote against Gingrich; I'd vote against him two or three times. As a registered Democrat, that's my prerogative.

===============Nathan makes a very good point. Newt was once the most hated politician in America. 14 years out of political office dims those passions, but they are still there in all the people that were around then who despised the corrupt and arrogant Newt...waiting to be rekindled.My Dad is a moderate Reagan Democrat who thinks of Newt as the main betrayer and saboteur of the Contract With America - finding out Newt just threw that out as a tool to gain office.He would line up to vote against Newt after that, plus the Newt sleaze and blowhardness.

Peter Hoh said...Scott, I'm willing to bet $50 to the charity of your choice that a GOP president, House, and Senate will not get rid of the TSA.

-------------Agree with Hoh. The problem with being brainlessly agin' Fed Gummit and wanting whole agencies eliminated is that within, they have functions most Americans want preserved. The argument is about scope and broadness of Federal powers.

I believe Romney, and most people should, simply for pragmatic effecacy in government notions Romney subscribes to. The Federal Government is dysfunctional, has far too many things on it's plate, important things undone while the less important wedge issues get too much time. If for no other reason, that is why the States should create their own healthcare solutions, do their own criminal justice, decide what workplace laws are, etc.

The TSA has too much scope, but at bare minimum, it should be retained as oversight on private firms providing airport and inflight security to what specified standards.

As for the hate of Romneycare - I see that as the work of social conservatives that are just as eager to meddle and socially tinker nationwide and Big Government liberals are. The fact that Massachusetts likes Romneycare 3-1 really bothers the Religious Right/Family values conservatives.

They want to tell Massachusetts and Vermont what their healthcare law should be, who can marry - as sure as a pack of progressive Jews in Manhattan want to control what Texans do with their healthcare, their death penalty.

As for the hate of Romneycare - I see that as the work of social conservatives that are just as eager to meddle and socially tinker nationwide and Big Government liberals are. The fact that Massachusetts likes Romneycare 3-1 really bothers the Religious Right/Family values conservatives.

Without even a mention of the fact that the fiscally conservative wing growing on the right could care less about the social conservative's agenda and sees the attempts to control morality through legislation every bit as pernicious as Obamacare.

ADDED:They are trying to argue that all those comments were spam that needed to be removed. But the bloggers and commenters over there had interacted with [the commenter]. You don't interact with spam. A step up from spam is "troll." But everyone knows not to feed the troll. Why did they go back and forth with [the commenter] if he was a troll? Their interaction is the evidence that he was not a troll. [The blog owner] simply became exasperated and embarrassed when [the commenter] outwrote him, and he destroyed the material that made him look bad. He's like a scientist who destroys his data after his conclusions are questioned. The obvious presumption in the case of destruction of evidence is that it hurt your case. Of course, the evidence of their interaction with [the commenter] is still there, and that evidence also, as I've just explained, is evidence against them. What colossal losers!

To me Romney and Huntsman are the only two candidates on the Republican side who are not complete nuts. Also, I think it will take a liberal Republican like Romney to enact universal healthcare and global warming legislation. So, if it is a general election between Obama and Romney then I would view it as a win-win.

Sockpuppets 'R' Us is the commenter that posted my real name and where I work on this blog. Which means he/she spent some time trying to find out who I am, which is a bit creepy. Oddly, that blog comment didn't get deleted. Hilarious that someone posting as Sockpuppets 'R' Us, with an empty profile, demands accountability in blog comments.

"I think it will take a liberal Republican like Romney to enact universal health care and global warming legislation."

Thank-you, Jay, for expressing in one brief post why I would take a bullet to the head before voting for that scumbag. Better to go down in flames than have a collaborationist asshat drag the party to hell.

Hoosier, I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. After more than 20 years of Democrat scum stabbing us in the back, I want the next GOP president to tell Nancy and Harry that the first time they dare to step into the Oval Office will be their last, because the Secret Service has orders to shoot to kill.

I realize that Ann is a Romney supporter. From what I can tell, Althouse is now a corporate subsidiary of Amazon. But remember, Ann also voted for Obama. That should tell you something about her view of the importance of conservative ideology.

Prediction-when Ann's Althouse Hillbillies come to realize that they have been snookered again, that they are going to get a Republican candidate (Romney) who is the modern day equivalent of Gerald Ford, they will start frothing at the mouth and start tearing the place apart.

Ann, get your cattle prod ready. (You should also buy a back up on Amazon.)

Jay -- I am a strong Romney supporter and highly libertarian and conservative. There are many Romney supporters here.

But froth forth, dude. Insult away. If it makes you feel better about the crater that is Obama's presidency and your own sad, miserable life. Tell us: is your home a double wide or an efficiency apartment?

Gingrich and Romney are basically identical on positions and reliability.

Gingrich is a 1000 times more of a fighter than Romney. Gingrich is a partisan. That's why right-wingers love him and moderates are iffy. The basic problem with Romney is not his positions. It's his lack of fire, his lack of true feeling. Where are his guts? Where is his fighting spirit? If there's pushback (and there will be) will Romney fight hard, or will he try to find the mushy middle?

My feeling on Newt is that he will draw a sharp, partisan divide between Obama and himself. And Obama--who is also deeply partisan--will match him. The country will have a clear choice. And I think in that scenario, Obama loses.

I can see Mitt "debating" Obama and being so damn nice. Like McCain with all that "my friend" crap. We'll all be muddled with happy, nothing talk.

Obama takes us $23 trillion in debt and Romney takes us $22 trillion in debt, or $21 trillion in debt. All the time bragging about how he "cut the deficit". We're up to our ass with RINOs in D.C. already.

It is telling that the criticism of Newt is that he's secretly a liberal. Yeah yeah, wait until the general, and then we'll hear what an insane right-winger he is.

Romney, by the way, will be cast as the insane Mormon. Newflash to all Republicans, Obama is in deep doo-doo and the media will be flinging it, regardless of who our nominee is. Who can fight back, that's what I want to know.

I think Seven would rather Obama not get elected to a second term. The only Republican candidates who can defeat him in a general election are Romney and Huntsman.

You don't know much about Newt Gingrich. He has plenty of big government solutions that tell people what to do. But since he isn't a leader, Congress will just blow him off. He wouldn't be able to enact anything because he has no discipline and is not steadfast. The Republicans voted him out as speaker, and he quit his seat the next day, and remains in D.C. to this day making money off rent-seekers.

Newt is not a leader. Newt is a train wreck. I doubt anyone would watch the debates between him and Obama because everyone's mind would be made up by then. Maybe Gingrich would win 10 states. Maybe.

Why is it, do you think, that presidential slogans and buzz phrases tend to be the opposite of fighting? Hope and Change. A Uniter Not a Divider. Why is that?

Is that why you like Romney? He's a vacuous bumper sticker waiting to happen?

The basic problem with Romney is that he is so obsessed with avoiding dislike that he's unable to get people to passionately join his cause. What cause? Why is he in this race, anyway?

It is axiomatically true that the kind of person you want to run for the presidency can never actually win the presidency.

For my entire adult life, the right-wing Republican who all the liberals despise (Reagan, Reagan, W, W) wins the election and the moderate Republican who the media says is not so bad (Bush '92, Dole, McCain) goes on to lose the election.

Newt threatens that paradigm as he's not as nice or funny as Reagan and W. (Thus he's not as strong as a candidate). But I would still rather take my chances with the right-winger who will fight for what I believe in, then the sure recipe for disaster, which is to nominate some RINO who finds common ground with Obama.

And even if you want to say that Mitt is to the right of Obama--and I know he is--the key question is whether Mitt Romney is willing to draw those lines. I see Mittens as Mr. Conflict Avoidance, as the worst talk show host in the history of radio, as the Empty Suit of 1959. And when he gets up on stage and says all these nice things about President Obama and how we're all just a nice big happy family of love, I will puke up a kidney and put a shoe in my television.

It's a fight, okay? And granted there are all sorts of fighting styles. You have to be funny. You have to be likable. You have to be Robin Hood without, you know, stealing from the rich. But I do not get a sense from Mitt Romney that he is fighting for anything.

I will vote for generic Republican, but that has not won any elections in my lifetime.

Croix -- if it's important to be liked then Newt will lose for sure. Moreover you seem to be -- from your writing -- someone who has never seriously engaged liberals. For one thing you'd know that any Republican will be vilified in the general election. You'd also know that liberals generally have great respect for Reagan.

What is with you people? What part about Gingrich can't win do you not understand? Also who should have been the nominee in '92 and '96? And should Romney have been the nominee in 2008 since he was more conservative than McCain?

You get the feeling that Mitt is an expert at control. Controlling his subordinates, controlling his message, wiping away any contrary evidence. Perhaps one day we will have a Romney is Nixon tag?

Newt, on the other hand, seems like he didn't really belong in Congress. He's saying what he thinks, stepping on toes, making enemies.

I've seen comparisons of Newt with Obama. Both are big idea men, both are professors, etc. And yet I see far more similarities with Mitt's cool, self-controlled demeanor and Obama's personality. (If Obama doesn't have a Nixon tag yet, he's earned one).

"You'd also know that liberals gerally have great respect for Reagan."

Seven, I generally find your thoughts interesting and provoking, but you cannot be serious. Liberals hate - and continue to hate - Reagan. Just spend five minutes with one and see how quikly they start foaming at the mouth about deficits and the Laffer Curve and trickle-down prosperity and Star Wars and the Evil Empire and Iran/Contra.

They only pretend to respect him now, because they can use conservatives' respect for the man to beat up on whomever the GOP Emmanuel Goldstein of the day might be.

And you don't even have to be dead. Look at the strange new respect Dubya got from the chattering enemedia when they wanted to compare his "compassionate" style with Rick Perry's "Texas swagger."

"Gingrich can't be president, so he'll never be a dead president, so he'll never be popular."

Barry Goldwater wasn't president, either, but he gets all sorts of "respect" from the left when they can use him to push the cause of gays in the military. Funny how Mr. "In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts" became a wise old statesman when the left needed to hide behind his skirts.

I seriously don't get people who bad mouth Romney as being a faux conservative, and a big govt conservative/liberal and a flip flopped and then say they're going to vote for Gingrich? Are you serious?On top of all that, why would family values conservatives put Gingrich over Romney, what with his affairs and divorces. If you listen to his latest interview with Beck, Gingrich sounds very little like a free market capitalist and a lot more like someone who finds all his solutions in govt.